The trouble with John F. Kerry

[angka]

"Even though my head is asking my heart to please shut up for the good of the Party, let me tell you: that felt good..."

http://www.rmpn.org/weblog/archives3/permalink/003708.cfm

[donsu]

1. he lost because the vote was rigged and he was too afraid to

contest the rigging.

[derby378]

2. Ignoring the "red states" didn't help, either (n/t)

[Clarkie1]

45. I think there was fraud, but I don't think he lost because of it

He lost for other reasons. It shouldn't have been close.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Well, he pandered to them enough.

So what difference would it have made?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. A weak candidate on a weak platform.

He gave up the one issue that would've beat the Boob when he voted for the IWR. Another "moderate" that offered nothing but "not quite as bad as Bush".

[IStriker]

6. Agreed. Add to that the fact that he was...

personally not very likeable. A lot of people I talked to were turned off by the thought of listening to him (and looking at him) for 4 yrs. I'm not saying this is right because he was obviously the better candidate on paper, but in the age of TV, he was a loser.

[Bridget Burke]

9. "in the age of TV, he was a loser"

Did you see any of the debates? Kerry may not be Mr. Warm & Fuzzy, but he was far superior to idiot boy.

There are quite a few people here who are nauseated at the prospect of 4 more years of looking at shrubbie. And 4 more years of lunging for the remote so we can hit MUTE.

When those idiots said they were "turned off" by Kerry--what was your reply?

[IStriker]

10. Truthfully, I just nodded in agreement and said...

"I know what you mean." Both candidates turned me off but for different reasons. Like I said he was fine on paper but not in person. Warm and Fuzzy was the least of his problems. I watched the Dem debates and the Pres debates and he was improved over the first set, but if Bush hadn't been a just horrible debater, Kerry would have turned off even more people. If Nader had made it on my ballot, I never would have voted for Kerry. I did know what people meant when they said that and that was one of the reasons I was so disappointed when Kerry got the nomination. Dean was my candidate. I hate to say it, but I was surprised that Kerry did as well as he did and the only reason he did was ABB.

[LittleClarkie]

14. That seems revisionist

Don't take his debate victories away from him. He said alot of the things I wanted him to, especially in that first one. It was not just that Bush was horrible. Kerry worked hard on his performance in those debates, got his message razor sharp and got people excited to support him, perhaps for the first time for many. I don't see anything in his prez debates that would have turned off even more people, as you put it.

I think several of the ABBs came to respect Kerry toward the end. But I'd still like to see an ABB/supporter breakdown of some kind. I wish someone had done that poll.

[IStriker]

25. It's just anecdotal evidence and I wish they had polled on ABB...

vs actual supporter too. It would be helpful to us in looking ahead to the next election. I thought Kerry hit his peak in the first debate, but that was Bush's worst performance which made for a bigger contrast. I'm not positive, but it seems to me that was his high point in polling and Bush slid right back into where he had been (ahead but by less) since his convention.

[LittleClarkie]

27. It think it depended on who you were hanging with

I was hanging with rank and file, union and the beleaguered Dems in my Red home county.

I think the farther left you go, the more ABB you find. The more average everyday somewhat more moderate Dems were happy enough with Kerry, I believe.

That's the problem with going with anecdotal evidence. Everyone has different anecdotes.

So I would submit that the majority that you hung with were ABB and the majority I hung with were at least moderately pro-Kerry.

[eridani]

33. A Martian anthropologist watching the debates--

--would have immediately concluded that Kerry was the actual president.

[newcombt]

38. tru dat^^

tru dat^^

[NYCGirl]

41. Unfortunately, Martian anthropologists aren't registered to vote in Earth

Presidential elections.

Except, perhaps in Ohio or Florida.
:evilgrin:

[shraby]

23. Since when is our president supposed

to be warm and fuzzy???? Franklin Roosevelt wasn't warm and fuzzy, John Kennedy wasn't warm and fuzzy. They were both articulate, intelligent and leaders of the first caliber. They made some tough decisions and presidents have to be able to do that, which Kerry would have been capable of.
That is what a president is supposed to be. Warm and fuzzy is what he is to his family, not the nation.

[IStriker]

24. Probably since Clinton made that a presidential asset...

I never thought warm and fuzzy was a presidential asset, but most of us and a lot of Repukes and swing voters (and women voters in particular) thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread and from then on the press compares everybody running for president to the bar Clinton set. I don't believe that "Kerry would have been capable of" making "tough decisions like Roosevelt..." He exhibited none of that during the campaign when he took both sides of every issue or was unable to take a stand and not change it to the opposite when it was deemed expedient. In the age of TV an attractive candidate who exudes warmth and likeability has a leg up on decisive candidates, which Kerry was neither, because too many voters do not vote on what they think is the best choice but how they feel about them. Unfortunately, Kerry lost on both counts with most voters.

[Leilani]

29. Franklin Roosevelt & John Kenedy were both excellent communicators

as was Ronald Reagan.

All three had a personal charm that moved people.

A President doesn't have to be "warm & fuzzy," but he must connect with the voters.

IMO Kerry never connected.

[newcombt]

37. tru dat ^^

tru dat^^

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sampsonblk]

42. Exactly right, I'd say

We should not make this mistake again.

[Debs]

7. Though

I am a lifetime committed liberal I couldnt get excited about Kerry. I have known for a long time that Kerry was a real liberal on the social justice issue I care so much about and was less excited about him during the campaign than when he first surfaced as a candidate. I am not exactly sure what he did wrong but that has to be a warning flag. Of course I would have voted for spongebob before the shrub, still something was wrong

[FrenchieCat]

8. What was wrong with Kerry, if true, is revealed in that

"Times" cry in your fries article is illustrated here....

In the heady days before the election, Kerry's top aides sat around picking a cabinet(one plan was to ask Colin Powell to stay on as secretary of State, thereby avoiding a massive power struggle between Sen. Joe Biden and Democratic foreign-policy wise man Richard Holbrooke).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6777696/site/newsweek/

If this paragraph is accurate, that lets me know all about what a Kerry Presidency would have been like.

To be that "scared" of controversy or attempting to avoid a "power struggle" at the cost of doing nothing does not smell like "leadership" to me.

Keeping Powell would have telegraphed such weakness on Kerry's and the Democrats' part, it would not have even been funny.

Hope it's a big media lie!

[Clarkie1]

46. Finnaly figured out what bothers me about Kerry: He's TIMID. n/t

[LittleClarkie]

15. My first impression of Kerry was

that he had the personality of a styrofoam cup. I was almost pissed that he had won the primaries and not my beloved Clark.

It was my growing concern over Iraq that woke me up in the first place. That would have been early 2004 I guess. It was finding an article about Guantanamo and my growing concern for the detainees who had no due process that made me turn around and start checking out Kerry properly. That was in April, I believe. I did so unenthusiasticly

I started sporting a "Real Deal" sign in my car about June, because it was the only thing I could get and I had to show my ABB status somehow. Over the summer, I ever so slowly started warming up to Kerry, and then collapsed at his feet some time in October.

A few things helped in the great thaw. I saw him with veterans, and even in the middle of the Swift vet mess, he was mentioning his anti-war history in rally speeches. At a time when you'd think he'd distance himself from that kid in 1971, he was proclaiming his earlier stance proudly. The BCCI history and Iran/Contra helped immensely up my esteem of the man. And I became intensely aware that he was Navy, like my dad, whom I lost in Feb of last year. I think I identified the two.

Even so, I couldn't listen to a speech without falling asleep until "the Closer" showed up.

I collapsed I think because of "Going Upriver." I've been in "Band of Brother" mode ever since.

[Gloria]

20. I fell in love with him at the end....that's the problem...he lost

that month between the conventions to the Swift Boaters, first of all...and by the time he got Sasso on board, it was just a little too late. He was great the last month or so....

[IStriker]

26. It is possible that your "warming up" was colored by your feelings...

about your dad and his having served in the Navy like Kerry. I know that I became more turned off with the Swift Boat accusations. My husband is retired Navy, served before Vietnam and long after, and absolutely despised Kerry and identified strongly with the Swift Boat vets. Making matters worse for me was Kerry's never answering the charges which left me open to the "brow-beating" I got from my husband who constantly said that any politician with his experience would have produced his records if there were not something he needed to hide. I couldn't come up with a logical argument to counter that and was forced to remain silent while he ranted.

I still voted for Kerry, but I resented all the more that he ended up being the nominee.

[LittleClarkie]

28. I would say it was part of the process yes

And I felt protective of Kerry and his medals, asking people I knew if I shoud throw away my dad's medals too, since apparently the Navy doesn't know how to give them out properly. Must mean their worthless, eh?

Meeting Jim Wasser, defending Max Cleland, meeting fellow VVAW and Marine vet John Linquist (hair past his shoulders and ended every phone conversation with "Semper Fi, man") also contributed to my feelings about the Smear vets.

But I don't quite get your reference to releasing his records. What records did he not release that he needed to? Most of them were on his website. He also released them to the press. But the wingnuts I was watching loved to comb through even what they had for any real or imagined discrepancy. I think giving them any more than was already out there was just adding fuel.

I can understand how dealing with your husband didn't help. This was a very, VERY emotional election for all of us.

[IStriker]

30. Records...

My husband is a Democrat too, but a defector to Bush this time because like I said he HATED Kerry. He hated what Kerry did after coming home from Vietnam. He felt and still feels personally insulted by what Kerry said about his fellow vets. In order to understand a lot of what I was reading during the campaign in regard to the military records being reported on Kerry's website or by the opposition, I had to ask him what does this, that mean, etc. as a lot of it was in military jargon that I could not decipher. He said that all Kerry had to do to put to rest most of the charges that were being thrown at him about his service, medals, etc. was to sign some military form which would release his full military file to the press. His campaign displayed 5 or 6 pp. of a military file of over 100 pp. and it was his contention that the only reason Kerry did not release the entire file to make the bogus rumors and allegations concerning the time spent in Vietnam go away was that somewhere in that 100 pages was something worse than what he was being accused of. I don't know if he was correct or not, but I sure had no argument to refute that.

[LittleClarkie]

31. I didn't like the "guilty until proven innocent" aspect of that

It was like a witchhunt. Kerry's DD214 was misprinted in one section, putting a Valor award with the silver when it belonged with the bronze (I think. I'd have to go and look again.) It looked like the typist had copied the line above by accident. But the Swift vets over at their website went nuts, saying Kerry was claiming something he didn't have. Somewhere in the records they could see, they also got the idea he was not honorably discharged. I can only imagine what they'd have done with the full records. They weren't out to have this thing put to rest once and for all. They were out to stop Scary Kerry. They weren't inclined to say "Gee, we were wrong. Sorry."

I understand having issues with John Kerry after he came home. But attacking his record was just not an honorable thing in my eyes and went way, way too far.

I equated what John Kerry did after the war as being as honorable and a part of his duty as the actions of Joseph Darby after Abu Ghraib. It was spooky how Kerry's testimony could be played over pictures of the abuse at that prison, and it was as if he was talking about our time, not just his own.

Here, read it if you haven't already:
http://www.c-span.org/2004vote/jkerrytestimony.asp

Do you think that the soldiers in Abu were bad people, or were they reacting to the atmosphere at the time? Do you think their superiors had anything to do with what the soldiers were doing? Do you think if they did, that it was right that the superiors are letting the soldiers dangle on their own without stepping up and admitting they created that atmosphere?

It was issues like these that Kerry was trying to address in his testimony. The soldiers were criminals because the war was one big crime, and anyone who touched it was tainted. I think that's the jist.

Kerry has also done good work for these veterans, about half or more of whom actually hate him. But that didn't stop him from co-founding the Vietnam Veterans of America or from fighting to help those with Agent Orange exposure, the same poison given to the new Ukraine leader.

Yes, some veterans hate Kerry, but I met several who love him and who think that what he did shortened the war and saved some lives.

That's the view from this broad, anyway.

[IStriker]

34. All I can say is...

I'm really lucky that my husband has no idea what I was doing back here during Vietnam while he was at sea! I have seen Kerry's testimony a couple of times and the debate he had with O'Neill including when it first happened. I don't blame my husband for taking offense and it's not just him, it's all the career navy friends we have who remember Kerry's testimony and are personally offended and never got over it. Most of them are registered Democrats too, but they lean moderate to conservative. Nothing short of an apology would have made them stop being angry. They are just like the Swift Boat vets in their thinking and a lot of the SBV's are career officers too. They resent that Kerry spent 4 mos. in Vietnam, never got beyond j.g. in rank, and called all of them war criminals. Nearly all of them voted for Bush this time as did their families. I gather they would not have been so angry had Kerry not tried to capitalize on his service. My husband said that he thought some ninny who worked for Kerry posted all the website stuff that made no sense to military people. I get what you said about guilty until proven innocent, but it p.o.'d me that he didn't at least come up with something once the accusations were made instead of ignoring them and hoping they would go away.

[newcombt]

39. tru dat^^

tru dat^^

[Bucknut213]

43. Politicians are always guilty til proven innocent

It's not a good thing. But with the current president as an example, there are too many crooked ones to assume any are innocent. I'm sure many people wondered what advantage Kerry would have withholding documents that proved him correct. So if he didn't release them he must be hiding something. I still dont know why he didn't. I don't understand.

On a side note, my uncle is another Vietnam Vet who wanted an apology from JK, but he wouldn't have voted for JK apology or not, so he might not be a good example.

[LittleClarkie]

44. I do understand

as I said, more people would have crawled up his ass with a microscope. It didn't matter how much info was given out. As it was, they proved pretty conclusively that the Smear Vets were lying about his service, but since Bush one, it doesn't seem to matter. They're still being called gallant, truth-telling, whistleblowing patriots. I could have just puked when I saw gallant in the LTTE section of my paper.

I wouldn't release info into that hostile environment either. The more info, the more fuel.

[njdemocrat106]

22. I felt the same way about Gore, to tell the truth

Granted, I still admire and respect Gore, but I didn't feel as passionate for Gore's campaign as I did for John Kerry's campaign. After witnessing what Bushco had done to our country and its reputation, I thought that Kerry was the guy to take back our country and our respect in the world. I'm disappointed that Kerry won't be President, but I'm glad to have a place like DU to turn to when I feel down from seeing too many Bush/Cheney stickers in one day (I still see a ton of them here even in blue NJ) and reading too many off-topic posts on the non-political message boards I read blasting liberals and praising Bush and his fellow shit-brained conservative followers.

[KoKo]

11. Just as Gore did, Kerry let the "Image Makers" and "Beltway Boys" define

him. If someone told him to get a photo op he did it. If someone said he needed to be "inclusive" he tried that. The leaks about him picking Repuglicans for his Cabinet and John McCain for VP turned off alot of his base. Just as Gore allowed himself to be manipulated Kerry seemed to feel that "Dem Hacks know best" so he let them run him.

He seemed to completely discount the Grassroots who had worked for Dean, Kucinich and then Clark. The internet folks just didn't seem "real" to him or his campaign. I think he was out of touch but I believe HE WON...in a squeaker...but he won...just as Gore won over that idiot Chimp who can barely walk and chew gum. The voting process has been taken over by the Repugs. Neither Gore nor Kerry had a chance and they were better men for all their flaws than the "Puppet" that was installed.

But, should both Gore and Kerry have caught fire so that the Repugs would be afraid to interfere with the vote? YES! They couldn't get the overwhelming support of the American people because of their "Handlers."

It's a tragedy...twice over. But, we've got to fix our Election System.

[robbedvoter]

12. uh, excuse me?

But, should both Gore and Kerry have caught fire so that the Repugs would be afraid to interfere with the vote?

What exactly do you think would have scared the GOP-ers to interfere with the vote now? And what is the maximum number of votes a Diebold machine can swallow? Why are we accepting fraud? (Ukraine, Romania did not)

[KoKo]

13. That's not what I said. Maybe you read my post too quickly?

:shrug:

[Disturbed]

17. Weak Candidate

His statement that he would have still voted for IWR had he known about no WMD killed it for me. In my view Kerry tried to please too many and mostly those illusive" Swing voters". 2nd thing that killed his surge after the debates was slow fight against the Swiftboat Liars. If he had what B. Clinton has he would have won by a wide margin. I am not in favor of B. Clinton's policies, btw, especially NAFTA and his Welfare Reform but B. Clinton has that rare quality, I guess one can call it charisma.

[newcombt]

36. tru dat ^^

tru dat ^^

[LittleClarkie]

16. Republicans in his cabinet seemed legitimate to me

I liked the unifying, nonpartisan feel of those ideas. He was never shy about teaming with Republicans who had good ideas.

Hagel would have been a good choice for his criticisms of Bush, and McCain was a close partner of his. I could have used a uniter, not a divider. Knowing Kerry's history, I didn't see it as false or surprising or off-putting.

Damn. Both sides attribute the most political motives to everything Kerry does. Can someone cut him a break?

[KoKo]

18. Where you come from is "MS Dems" though...You've gotta understand that

those of us who've been here since "Selection 2000" have moved way Left due to what we've been through since we've been here. You may have a valid "New Dem View" of where the Party needs to go...but those of us like me...are just about to BOLT...

But, I understand what you say...not dissing you...just saying that some of us have a different perspective given what we've lived through and may need to be much more left of you...:-)'s to you...

[LittleClarkie]

19. Thank you for your understanding

Yes, I wasn't around for 2000 in any meaningful way. I was vaguely unhappy about Bush, but not terribly enthused by Gore.

What is MS Dem referring to? That went over my head.

I wonder how many are like me, newly awake this year. And where do us newbies stand as a whole. I should poll that up.

[fujiyama]

47. It could be Mississippi Dems

I have no idea though.

[American Tragedy]

35. What are MS Dems?

[LittleClarkie]

40. Might be MainStream

That's my guess. I'm a MainStream Dem.

[LittleClarkie]

21. Afraid to interfere?

Kerry had the big "mo." Many could feel it here. Zogby was predicting a big win. Truthisall had us all believing in an electoral landslide. The smile on Kerry's face told us his internal polls could see it too. The exit polls showed an electoral landslide. Karen Hughes even told Bush as much early on. He took it stoicly, they said.

It was a big shock to me when Kerry came out a loser in the end. It was like dropping down a manhole.

If they weren't afraid to steal an electoral landslide, not much else was going to deter them.